Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use(propublica.org)
propublica.org
Internal documents shed light on the guidelines that Facebook’s censors use
https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-internal-documents-algorithms
70 comments
>Higgins’ incitement to violence passed muster because it targeted a specific sub-group of Muslims — those that are “radicalized” — while Delgado’s post was deleted for attacking whites in general.
That seems disingenuous. Higgins' rant starts by pitching "Christendom" with-a-capital-C against "these heathen animals", before he ever mentions radicalization. And when he does mention it, he says "radicalized Islamic suspect", which is fairly meaningless as a category as no burden of proof is required. Coupled with repeated incitements to "kill them all", I think that's pretty clearly directed at all Muslims.
The trouble with this policy is, I can apparently be as racist and hateful as I like as long as I take care to slip a "non-protected category" in there - even if by doing so I am implying that all members of the protected category are such. For example, "lynch every last one of those baby-raping niggers" is fine, because it only applies to those niggers that rape babies. In fact it is exactly this sort of speech that is the most harmful - "All niggers rape babies and we should lynch them" is far less potent.
That seems disingenuous. Higgins' rant starts by pitching "Christendom" with-a-capital-C against "these heathen animals", before he ever mentions radicalization. And when he does mention it, he says "radicalized Islamic suspect", which is fairly meaningless as a category as no burden of proof is required. Coupled with repeated incitements to "kill them all", I think that's pretty clearly directed at all Muslims.
The trouble with this policy is, I can apparently be as racist and hateful as I like as long as I take care to slip a "non-protected category" in there - even if by doing so I am implying that all members of the protected category are such. For example, "lynch every last one of those baby-raping niggers" is fine, because it only applies to those niggers that rape babies. In fact it is exactly this sort of speech that is the most harmful - "All niggers rape babies and we should lynch them" is far less potent.
> * Unlike American law, which permits preferences such as affirmative action for racial minorities and women for the sake of diversity or redressing discrimination, Facebook’s algorithm is designed to defend all races and genders equally.*
This is inaccurate as to the allowable purposes for affirmative action. In Bakke, (1978), the Supreme Court held that diversity was an allowable rationale, but redressing past discrimination was not. As described in the NYT:
Diversity isn’t just one rationale for creating or maintaining a racially integrated student body. It is the only rationale. Ever since the Bakke case nearly four decades ago, no other reason for affirmative action has passed constitutional muster in the view of the Supreme Court’s majority: not equalizing opportunity, not redressing past wrongs (the flagship Austin campus was formally all-white until 1956 and functionally segregated long after that) or opening previously closed doors. Only “diversity.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/opinion/the-supreme-court... (an opinion piece related to the Fisher case, which pertained to affirmative action in university admissions)
This is inaccurate as to the allowable purposes for affirmative action. In Bakke, (1978), the Supreme Court held that diversity was an allowable rationale, but redressing past discrimination was not. As described in the NYT:
Diversity isn’t just one rationale for creating or maintaining a racially integrated student body. It is the only rationale. Ever since the Bakke case nearly four decades ago, no other reason for affirmative action has passed constitutional muster in the view of the Supreme Court’s majority: not equalizing opportunity, not redressing past wrongs (the flagship Austin campus was formally all-white until 1956 and functionally segregated long after that) or opening previously closed doors. Only “diversity.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/opinion/the-supreme-court... (an opinion piece related to the Fisher case, which pertained to affirmative action in university admissions)
Where they draw the line on some of these things seems... odd. A degrading generalization about a nationality like one of their examples
> the Irish suck
seems relatively harmless, while the permissible
> Keep the horny migrant teenagers away from our daughters
seems much more dangerous. The latter is much more likely to spur some sort of antisocial behavior from a reader.
> the Irish suck
seems relatively harmless, while the permissible
> Keep the horny migrant teenagers away from our daughters
seems much more dangerous. The latter is much more likely to spur some sort of antisocial behavior from a reader.
Is the latter dangerous because it is dissent? It sounds like we are now defining a framework for what dissent is acceptable and it seems to align to a dominant political ideology. Sort of defeats the point of dissent.
It's dangerous because it evokes a specific fear that's likely to inspire action. You could swap migrants and Irish in an area with a sufficient Irish population and it would still be true.
> the migrants suck
Is pretty harmless, while
> Keep the horny Irish teenagers away from our daughters
might well lead to someone assaulting people they perceived to be Irish teenagers who were getting too friendly with their daughters.
> the migrants suck
Is pretty harmless, while
> Keep the horny Irish teenagers away from our daughters
might well lead to someone assaulting people they perceived to be Irish teenagers who were getting too friendly with their daughters.
Censorship is always a framework for defining acceptable dissent (or deviance, if you prefer).
"The Birth of a Nation" (Ku Klux Klan propaganda film) for instance, uses that tactic to dehumanize black men... that film is to blame for a temporary expansion of the KKK.
So I think accusing a demographic of being perverted should be considered hate speech in my opinion.
So I think accusing a demographic of being perverted should be considered hate speech in my opinion.
When you consider what Facebook is trying to accomplish, which is to establish a universal code for acceptable content across multiple cultures and languages - this looks a lot more acceptable to me, than it would be otherwise.
Except it isn't universal. According to the article, each region has its own set of guidelines for acceptability.
Only if you accept the premise in the first place.
There is no set of rules that won't yield absurd results. FB is always going to carve out exceptions for the powerful. The baseline still starts from Zuckerburg's upper-class, U.S. dominant-culture sensibilities. And so on.
There is no set of rules that won't yield absurd results. FB is always going to carve out exceptions for the powerful. The baseline still starts from Zuckerburg's upper-class, U.S. dominant-culture sensibilities. And so on.
Universal? It doesn't get more US-centric than that...
I get the theory behind that quiz 'trick question', but does it make any actual legal sense? If the discrimination against a subset happens because of the component of the subset that's protected, then surely it's an attack on a protected category. So if you say "black children are all stupid" the likely implication is that you're saying "unlike white children" (otherwise why would you include black).
Is this even true legally? Could a school discriminate against black children because, hey, they are children? Or a movie theater: "Let's not offer youth discounts to Latinos".
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the legalistic view, but it seems to be an absurdity.
Is this even true legally? Could a school discriminate against black children because, hey, they are children? Or a movie theater: "Let's not offer youth discounts to Latinos".
I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the legalistic view, but it seems to be an absurdity.
It's not generally speaking a matter of law, since the context is that of a US-based private company moderating the behavior of its voluntary users, and we generally treat this in a very laissez-faire fashion by default. The extent to which Facebook heeds the laws of those countries other than the US, in which it does business and would like to continue doing so, is determined almost entirely by the value it places on that business.
Of course, this situation changes in any such case as new legislation is made to address perceived or actual need, but that hasn't really happened yet here. The same is not true of, say, refusing trade to members of a specific ethnic group because of that ethnicity - a case in which laws of the sort I describe have indeed been made.
(And, to be clear, I have serious qualms with pretty much every facet of the way in which Facebook does business, from its content moderation choices, to the fashion in which it monetizes its userbase, to the extent to which the scale of userbase it's deliberately developed - in support of that questionable style of monetization - might make "voluntary" an inaccurate way to describe the choice people have of whether or not to participate there. My description above is not normative, but positive, and should be regarded as such.)
Of course, this situation changes in any such case as new legislation is made to address perceived or actual need, but that hasn't really happened yet here. The same is not true of, say, refusing trade to members of a specific ethnic group because of that ethnicity - a case in which laws of the sort I describe have indeed been made.
(And, to be clear, I have serious qualms with pretty much every facet of the way in which Facebook does business, from its content moderation choices, to the fashion in which it monetizes its userbase, to the extent to which the scale of userbase it's deliberately developed - in support of that questionable style of monetization - might make "voluntary" an inaccurate way to describe the choice people have of whether or not to participate there. My description above is not normative, but positive, and should be regarded as such.)
From my interpretation, it's not so much a legal worry as it is a statement of company beliefs -- for starters, according to the reproduced slides, religion is not a protected category for Facebook, even though it enjoys federal protections, while gender identity is, even though there's no federal law. Additionally those legal protections are for certain categories. Age has federal protections when it comes to employment, but not for housing.
None of those statuses enjoy special protection when it comes to free speech, so FB is making its own decisions here. In the slide titled "Subsets", you see a rough algorithm that censors are supposed to use:
PC + PC = PC (protected class, I assume)
PC + NPC = NPC (non-protected class)
Irish women = PC
Irish teens = NPC
-------------
These guidelines presumably help censors have a quick test to tell between hate speech and controversial speech, so that posting a Chris Rock stand-up segment won't get you banned. It's obviously imperfect and in flux. The slides note that migrants became a "quasi protected category" after the Syrian refugee crisis "triggered a global conversation around the role Facebook plays in protecting migrants"
None of those statuses enjoy special protection when it comes to free speech, so FB is making its own decisions here. In the slide titled "Subsets", you see a rough algorithm that censors are supposed to use:
PC + PC = PC (protected class, I assume)
PC + NPC = NPC (non-protected class)
Irish women = PC
Irish teens = NPC
-------------
These guidelines presumably help censors have a quick test to tell between hate speech and controversial speech, so that posting a Chris Rock stand-up segment won't get you banned. It's obviously imperfect and in flux. The slides note that migrants became a "quasi protected category" after the Syrian refugee crisis "triggered a global conversation around the role Facebook plays in protecting migrants"
Creating ways to allow users to control their own groups and block content they don't want is cheaper, less controversial, and probably more effective in terms of user satisfaction.
A simple check mark in the settings would suffice. Or a "see less content like this" button.
But of course, that's not what they want. Mark Zuckerberg is a pretty political guy himself, and FB is a great tool for him to influence the world.
But of course, that's not what they want. Mark Zuckerberg is a pretty political guy himself, and FB is a great tool for him to influence the world.
Yeah this seems like an attempt to demonstrate that Facebook can act as a supranational regulatory institution which seems like a bit of an overreach.
Facebook says that only governments may use violence to achieve political aims:
"The rule against posts that support violent resistance against a foreign occupier was developed because “we didn’t want to be in a position of deciding who is a freedom fighter,” Willner said. Facebook has since dropped the provision and revised its definition of terrorism to include nongovernmental organizations that carry out premeditated violence “to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim,” according to a person familiar with the rules."
aka they would have banned American Revolutionaries in 1700's
"The rule against posts that support violent resistance against a foreign occupier was developed because “we didn’t want to be in a position of deciding who is a freedom fighter,” Willner said. Facebook has since dropped the provision and revised its definition of terrorism to include nongovernmental organizations that carry out premeditated violence “to achieve a political, religious or ideological aim,” according to a person familiar with the rules."
aka they would have banned American Revolutionaries in 1700's
> Now the German government is considering legislation that would allow social networks such as Facebook to be fined up to 50 million euros if they don’t remove hate speech and fake news quickly enough.
As an American I can't imagine being arrested for speaking my mind about a race or religion whether it's considered hate speech or not. It's just unfathomable. Thanks to our forefathers for putting free speech on such a pedestal and our government for upholding it for 200+ years.
This can't end well shutting people up like this.
> German police raided 36 homes over social media hate speech
https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/22/german-police-raided-36-...
As an American I can't imagine being arrested for speaking my mind about a race or religion whether it's considered hate speech or not. It's just unfathomable. Thanks to our forefathers for putting free speech on such a pedestal and our government for upholding it for 200+ years.
This can't end well shutting people up like this.
> German police raided 36 homes over social media hate speech
https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/22/german-police-raided-36-...
From the very begining of free speech theorization, limits such as hate speech were mentionned, just saying.
I'd like to see a specific citation here, please.
Mentioned how? In which countries? In the USA, 'hate speech' is simply not a category of unprotected speech under the 1st amendment as it's understood today:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
An example of a category that is not protected in the USA would be death threats or false & defamatory statements.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
An example of a category that is not protected in the USA would be death threats or false & defamatory statements.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Different cultures, different laws, different values.
I know Americans mostly are very absolutist when it comes to free speech and its limitations. However consider that other countries do have different priorities or a different understanding of freedom and/or how to preserve it (see positive vs. negative freedom).
Restrictions on speech do not necessarily turn a country fascist, just like any restriction on general freedom.
I know Americans mostly are very absolutist when it comes to free speech and its limitations. However consider that other countries do have different priorities or a different understanding of freedom and/or how to preserve it (see positive vs. negative freedom).
Restrictions on speech do not necessarily turn a country fascist, just like any restriction on general freedom.
I'd love to see how quickly an ISIS recruitment rally would be squashed in any city in the USA with nobody shedding a tear over the abuse of freedom of speech.
The ACLU famously defended the KKK's right to have parades/rallies. Both have a pretty good history of killing Americans and saying horrible things.
This country exists because of freedom of speech and press, and it really does matter to us.
This country exists because of freedom of speech and press, and it really does matter to us.
America has historically cared very little for the Americans the KKK killed. Judging by the commentary that arises whenever BLM is mentioned, it still doesn't.
To be fair to ACLU, they have good record defending speech no matter who talk. The did care about civil rights groups speech as much as KKK.
When BLM is mentioned, I often see people criticize their methods, the underlying ideology of some members and their claims to truth. I have never seen anyone not care about black people being killed.
There is, of course, a possibility that I'm living in an opaque filter bubble and that the racist hordes are just outside. If I am, please pop that bubble and show me the truth.
There is, of course, a possibility that I'm living in an opaque filter bubble and that the racist hordes are just outside. If I am, please pop that bubble and show me the truth.
"Those Demanding Free Speech Limits to Fight ISIS Pose a Greater Threat to U.S. Than ISIS" (The Intercept):
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/29/those-demanding-free-spe...
https://theintercept.com/2015/12/29/those-demanding-free-spe...
>As an American I can't imagine being arrested for speaking my mind about a race or religion whether it's considered hate speech or not.
Yeah, you might just get fired from your (unrelated) job over an internet mob storm.
Yeah, you might just get fired from your (unrelated) job over an internet mob storm.
Admittedly, that's bad, and pretty devastating.
But I think compared to having the gestapo kick in your door, take you away in cuffs, and no-one sees you for 90 days is just a little more egregious.
But I think compared to having the gestapo kick in your door, take you away in cuffs, and no-one sees you for 90 days is just a little more egregious.
Gestapo? Really? That's being needlessly hyperbolic, and somewhat ridiculous considering the raids concerned support for National Socialism. In the instance you presented no one was arrested.
"The operation focused in particular on the German state of Bavaria, where according to police sources, a secret Facebook group had posted messages glamorizing National Socialism, which is illegal in Germany."
http://www.dw.com/en/german-police-launch-mass-raids-over-on...
"The operation focused in particular on the German state of Bavaria, where according to police sources, a secret Facebook group had posted messages glamorizing National Socialism, which is illegal in Germany."
http://www.dw.com/en/german-police-launch-mass-raids-over-on...
Unfortunately that's the reality for Western/Northern Europe right now. In countries like Germany or Sweden, speaking against other people on Twitter/Facebook, critizing immigration policies can get you ostracized, fired from your job and even taken into custody for 'hate speech'.
Germany learned the hard way that letting people "speak their mind" does not always lead to great outcomes. The Weimar Republic actually had the things you wanted, it even allowed parties to be part of the parliament while wanting to eliminate the Republic. The result was Nazi Germany. We decided against repeating this. Different histories lead to different results.
I think the disagreement is that Americans (and Brits, and possibly other countries deriving their legal traditions from the Crown) generally consider speech merely expression.
Expressing your hatred is not what's illegal in Germany. Inciting violence and hatred is. It just so happens that certain ways of expressing yourself also incite violence and hatred.
Saying "I hate Muslims" is in itself not necessarily a crime in Germany. Saying "All Muslims should be killed" on the other hand is a direct call to action, asking people to commit a crime and thus directly attacking public order and human rights.
It's similar to shouting "fire" in a theater: it's not illegal because it's expression, it's illegal because it aims to mislead people into thinking there's a threat to their life and to act on that fear (i.e. cause a panic as people run for the exits).
It's also no different from the adage "one person's freedom ends where the freedom of another person begins". You can express yourself all you want, you just have to consider how that affects other people (and not so much in the sense of "I am offended" but "You are right and I will go and commit the crimes you're asking me to").
EDIT: FWIW, Germany has "freedom of opinion" and "freedom of expression" in its constitution. But it also strongly defends not just the rights of individual humans but also of "human dignity". Most laws are ultimately derived from that.
EDIT2: Also keep in mind that the US in some cases takes it so far that _giving people money_ is considered a form of expression and therefore protected speech. This would never fly in Germany because "expression" doesn't automatically cancel out everything else.
Expressing your hatred is not what's illegal in Germany. Inciting violence and hatred is. It just so happens that certain ways of expressing yourself also incite violence and hatred.
Saying "I hate Muslims" is in itself not necessarily a crime in Germany. Saying "All Muslims should be killed" on the other hand is a direct call to action, asking people to commit a crime and thus directly attacking public order and human rights.
It's similar to shouting "fire" in a theater: it's not illegal because it's expression, it's illegal because it aims to mislead people into thinking there's a threat to their life and to act on that fear (i.e. cause a panic as people run for the exits).
It's also no different from the adage "one person's freedom ends where the freedom of another person begins". You can express yourself all you want, you just have to consider how that affects other people (and not so much in the sense of "I am offended" but "You are right and I will go and commit the crimes you're asking me to").
EDIT: FWIW, Germany has "freedom of opinion" and "freedom of expression" in its constitution. But it also strongly defends not just the rights of individual humans but also of "human dignity". Most laws are ultimately derived from that.
EDIT2: Also keep in mind that the US in some cases takes it so far that _giving people money_ is considered a form of expression and therefore protected speech. This would never fly in Germany because "expression" doesn't automatically cancel out everything else.
The Weimar had lots of extremist parties on both the left and the right. It just as easily could have gone communist as fascist. Part of the reasons the Nazis were supported was because they were anti communist. Somehow I doubt modern Germany is just as hard on extremists on the left though.
The people being silenced aren't necessarily anti-democratic either. The Nazis were pretty clear they wanted to eliminate the republic, as you mention. Not just people upset at immigration policy.
The people being silenced aren't necessarily anti-democratic either. The Nazis were pretty clear they wanted to eliminate the republic, as you mention. Not just people upset at immigration policy.
The problem here is that Nazi Germany also disallowed people to "speak their mind".
So if you say free speech caused Nazi Germany, I might as well say: Lack of free speech let Nazi Germany (and even more so the Holocaust) go on for such a long time.
So is limiting free speech really the solution? I think we're setting a dangerous precedent.
So if you say free speech caused Nazi Germany, I might as well say: Lack of free speech let Nazi Germany (and even more so the Holocaust) go on for such a long time.
So is limiting free speech really the solution? I think we're setting a dangerous precedent.
The status quo is that we're not Nazi Germany. The status quo is therefore that we're at the risk of becoming Nazi Germany.
This is the case in modern Germany as much as it is the case in the US or the UK.
The German answer to that is to look at what allowed us to become Nazi Germany last time and to avoid that.
Some of the resulting limitations are questionable (e.g. the parliamentary 5% hurdle), some are not (e.g. treating incitement of violence and racial hatred as a crime).
If you rally a crowd, step on a podium and tell them to "gas the Jews" or "kill all white men" or "hunt down and murder Edward Snowden", you're facing jail time. Because you're intentionally motivating people to commit serious crimes. Whether you're Joe Blow or a major politician.
FWIW I do disagree that censorship is the wrong solution although many politicians in Germany demand it because it's an easy win. Deleting incitement may stop the hatred from spreading but it doesn't address the cause. Even worse: it hides a crime and interferes with criminal investigations.
Social media companies' response to meeting the legal demands in Germany is to either block content preemptively or to basically give you a button that lets you opt into not seeing it. That doesn't follow the spirit of the law, let alone the letter of it.
This is the case in modern Germany as much as it is the case in the US or the UK.
The German answer to that is to look at what allowed us to become Nazi Germany last time and to avoid that.
Some of the resulting limitations are questionable (e.g. the parliamentary 5% hurdle), some are not (e.g. treating incitement of violence and racial hatred as a crime).
If you rally a crowd, step on a podium and tell them to "gas the Jews" or "kill all white men" or "hunt down and murder Edward Snowden", you're facing jail time. Because you're intentionally motivating people to commit serious crimes. Whether you're Joe Blow or a major politician.
FWIW I do disagree that censorship is the wrong solution although many politicians in Germany demand it because it's an easy win. Deleting incitement may stop the hatred from spreading but it doesn't address the cause. Even worse: it hides a crime and interferes with criminal investigations.
Social media companies' response to meeting the legal demands in Germany is to either block content preemptively or to basically give you a button that lets you opt into not seeing it. That doesn't follow the spirit of the law, let alone the letter of it.
I mostly agree with your points and just want to note a few things:
> The status quo is that we're not Nazi Germany. The status quo is therefore that we're at the risk of becoming Nazi Germany.
This is not a binary thing, in a democracy there will always be a number of people who think the state is insert arbitrary negative adjective here
So there will always be people who feel threatened (if only in some aspects) by the state, no matter if it's Nazi. And these people want to protect their rights such as free speech, and IMO rightly so. So avoiding becoming Nazi Germany is not enough, you need to avoid even aspects of it such as wars on foreign soil or surveillance of civilian communication, both of which are present today and were in the 1940s.
Limiting free speech is just another aspect that adds to the list of becoming Nazi, hence my 'no'.
> If you rally a crowd, step on a podium and tell them to "gas the Jews" or "kill all white men" or "hunt down and murder Edward Snowden", you're facing jail time.
IANAL but I think this is covered by penal code already [1]. Now hate speech is bad but it'll only convince the ones who are already "close to being convinced". That probably doesn't include you and me, and I personally prefer to know who are the idiots around than to have them shut up and only later realize who they are when they commit an actual crime.
As a side note, it matters even today whether you're a politician (if only in the US) [2]
[1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/241.html [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7829062249374105...
> The status quo is that we're not Nazi Germany. The status quo is therefore that we're at the risk of becoming Nazi Germany.
This is not a binary thing, in a democracy there will always be a number of people who think the state is insert arbitrary negative adjective here
So there will always be people who feel threatened (if only in some aspects) by the state, no matter if it's Nazi. And these people want to protect their rights such as free speech, and IMO rightly so. So avoiding becoming Nazi Germany is not enough, you need to avoid even aspects of it such as wars on foreign soil or surveillance of civilian communication, both of which are present today and were in the 1940s.
Limiting free speech is just another aspect that adds to the list of becoming Nazi, hence my 'no'.
> If you rally a crowd, step on a podium and tell them to "gas the Jews" or "kill all white men" or "hunt down and murder Edward Snowden", you're facing jail time.
IANAL but I think this is covered by penal code already [1]. Now hate speech is bad but it'll only convince the ones who are already "close to being convinced". That probably doesn't include you and me, and I personally prefer to know who are the idiots around than to have them shut up and only later realize who they are when they commit an actual crime.
As a side note, it matters even today whether you're a politician (if only in the US) [2]
[1] https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/241.html [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7829062249374105...
Nonsense!
Germany banned Hitler from public speaking in the 1920s; all this did was give Hitler more notoriety, and the NSDAP more propaganda material to work with.
Nazi Germany still did not emerge through democratic processes; they failed to gain a parliamentary majority despite years of street/voter harassment. Instead, they subverted democracy by exploiting a civil liberty loophole in the Weimar Constitution.
If anything, the rise of Nazi Germany demonstrates why such loopholes in protections for civil liberties are so fundamentally dangerous. For a more modern example, look at how "hate speech" laws in Russia are in fact used to silence political dissent.
Germany banned Hitler from public speaking in the 1920s; all this did was give Hitler more notoriety, and the NSDAP more propaganda material to work with.
Nazi Germany still did not emerge through democratic processes; they failed to gain a parliamentary majority despite years of street/voter harassment. Instead, they subverted democracy by exploiting a civil liberty loophole in the Weimar Constitution.
If anything, the rise of Nazi Germany demonstrates why such loopholes in protections for civil liberties are so fundamentally dangerous. For a more modern example, look at how "hate speech" laws in Russia are in fact used to silence political dissent.
Comparing a politician who is currently in office to a civilian is unfair. If a newspaper decided not to publish a speech by the leader of Iran because "wiping Israel off the map" is racist; it would be doing its readers a disservice.
Well, this calculus of protected classes they seem to be using does give off an impression that it was either designed by someone aggressively unthinking or sufficiently opposed to the premise that they tried to sabotage it as much as they could get away with. Under some pretty reasonable assumptions (complements of protected classes are protected; two permissible posts bolted together are a permissible posts), a system where protected ∩ unprotected is unprotected is trivially circumventable: for instance, rather than posting "women suck", you can always post "women drivers suck; also, women non-drivers suck".
This was submitted and flagged several times but as far as I can tell it's a substantive article with lots of information. We've changed the inflammatory title to the more neutral subtitle and are going to try turning off flags. (For an object lesson in how determined discussion can be by title alone, the alternate submission at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14656463 is interesting.)
All: if you comment on this please make sure your comment is substantive and edit out any flamebait. Let's see how far we can get with a civil discussion.
All: if you comment on this please make sure your comment is substantive and edit out any flamebait. Let's see how far we can get with a civil discussion.
I like the motivation. But it looks like everybody's afraid to start. (Me too. I've had a lot to say on pretty much every topic that's covered or even touched here. But I don't want to risk attracting a dogpile on a day when I lack the wherewithal to juggle a lot of arguments and give each the respect it deserves.)
I tried to post this article a couple hours ago and I've got a message it was submitted before, without a link to the submitted article. Search resulted in nothing. Are there special measures to blocking articles and making them not even searchable? In the past I could still find flagged articles via search.
Probably those articles were [dead] in addition to being [flagged] and you don't have 'showdead' (described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) set to 'yes' in your profile.
Context is important here. I'm guessing it got lost on you?
Personal swipes aren't ok on HN. Please remain civil. (Edit: It read like a swipe to me, but if you didn't intend it that way, I apologize.)
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14659259 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14659259 and marked it off-topic.
Thank you for removing. It did not add to the conversation.
[deleted]
What if it's true?
If you think so, you need to start asking yourself why.
When hostile racial stereotypes get reinforced day after day you end up with a brainwashed society like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i20d11fGz-0
When hostile racial stereotypes get reinforced day after day you end up with a brainwashed society like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i20d11fGz-0
Oh, I don't really think so, no, but it is conceivable. And I'd actually rather have people communicate what they believe to be true rather than what they think they can get away with.
[deleted]
How would you even trust such results? I mean, lets look at where they come from.
Reported crimes in systems that are biased against some folks, with laws that are easier to break and get caught with when you are poor. Some of the folks are poor because of the situations that have happened to them - war, civil unrest, domestic violence, racism and discrimination of the past still affecting them. And lets not forget, a lot of folks don't report crimes like rape - this is higher in some countries than others. In some cases, reporting a rape might ruin your life.
How can you trust numbers coming from such systems when they say that skin color x or cultural background y does more crimes? We've had reports that do say such things, and the inherent biases in them generally make them untrue.
Reported crimes in systems that are biased against some folks, with laws that are easier to break and get caught with when you are poor. Some of the folks are poor because of the situations that have happened to them - war, civil unrest, domestic violence, racism and discrimination of the past still affecting them. And lets not forget, a lot of folks don't report crimes like rape - this is higher in some countries than others. In some cases, reporting a rape might ruin your life.
How can you trust numbers coming from such systems when they say that skin color x or cultural background y does more crimes? We've had reports that do say such things, and the inherent biases in them generally make them untrue.
You are setting up a framework of thought where no matter how much data you gather that shows some group is indeed more violent, you are allowed to just dismiss it on the basis of some situational perceived discrimination.
Not really, I'm just aware that a lot of these sorts of grouping stereotypes are wrong - and much of the past studies have been flawed by discriminatory views.
For example, take the "poor people commit more crimes". Now, I don't know that this is true, though I know folks believe it and some studies have seemed to back it up. But I also know that a lot of poor folks lack ways to hide their crime (no private place to smoke pot in, for example) and live in areas more likely to be policed heavily. The only thing I can really come up with is that poor people get caught for crimes more often, and so are easily over-represented in the prison system. The conclusion that "poor people commit more crime" is one of bias.
This sort of thing is enough to cast doubt on a lot of these sorts of statements and check for such biases. It is a bit different from the data actually being true with the cause of the trend being discrimination. For example, "Felons often return to crime after release in the US" is likely true. Part of the reason for that is because of discrimination and biases against the ex-felon (especially in certain subsets of felons). I'd not ignore the data, but address the discrimination when trying to fix it.
For example, take the "poor people commit more crimes". Now, I don't know that this is true, though I know folks believe it and some studies have seemed to back it up. But I also know that a lot of poor folks lack ways to hide their crime (no private place to smoke pot in, for example) and live in areas more likely to be policed heavily. The only thing I can really come up with is that poor people get caught for crimes more often, and so are easily over-represented in the prison system. The conclusion that "poor people commit more crime" is one of bias.
This sort of thing is enough to cast doubt on a lot of these sorts of statements and check for such biases. It is a bit different from the data actually being true with the cause of the trend being discrimination. For example, "Felons often return to crime after release in the US" is likely true. Part of the reason for that is because of discrimination and biases against the ex-felon (especially in certain subsets of felons). I'd not ignore the data, but address the discrimination when trying to fix it.
> How would you even trust such results?
If those results are universal (meaning they are evident in all locations regardless of the location's history), then its likely extremely true.
Another way is to simply use your eyes, ears, and common sense.
If those results are universal (meaning they are evident in all locations regardless of the location's history), then its likely extremely true.
Another way is to simply use your eyes, ears, and common sense.
A dismayingly high proportion of your comments look like trolling. Please don't use HN that way.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14661061 and marked it off-topic.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14661061 and marked it off-topic.
Sorry, it's probably a bad culture fit. I'll leave.
I left facebook last month. I don't miss it, I'm happier for it, and articles like this kinda vindicate that decision.
It's nice to see that the things I was observing there are, in fact, exactly what the company is okay with: racism, sexism, homophobia are fine on Facebook as long as you craft your posts and comments with surgical precision. It explains how, nearly every time I reported one of the assholes making those types of posts, nothing would happen.
Edit: and, as usual, downvotes instead of replies. Never change, HN.
It's nice to see that the things I was observing there are, in fact, exactly what the company is okay with: racism, sexism, homophobia are fine on Facebook as long as you craft your posts and comments with surgical precision. It explains how, nearly every time I reported one of the assholes making those types of posts, nothing would happen.
Edit: and, as usual, downvotes instead of replies. Never change, HN.
I suspect you're being downvoted because your assessment of the issue to "Facebook is okay with racism, sexism, homophobia" etc. is seen as an oversimplification, no different than someone from Germany/Israel saying the U.S. (and the 1st Amendment) is OK with neo-Nazis, or China thinking America as a den of smut and anarchy.
Except Facebook being okay with discrimination and hate speech is literally spelled out in the slide deck. As long as you don't tickle the right combination of "protected class" by using an appropriate modifier (e.g. "black children" instead of "all black people") you can say whatever the hell you want about people.
It's not my fault so many users here are being willfully obtuse about this.
It's not my fault so many users here are being willfully obtuse about this.
Why shouldn't I be able to say whatever I want about people, even if it deviates from the norm. Norms change, "Gays are people" and "Women should be able to vote" were 100% norm-violating speech until recently. In fact, there's a few countries where those are still unwelcome speech - should we bow to their social norms?
Shouldn't I be able to say things like that? Aren't you happy people did? Do you believe that our current worldview is perfect and cannot be challenged by concepts outside of the Overton window?
Shouldn't I be able to say things like that? Aren't you happy people did? Do you believe that our current worldview is perfect and cannot be challenged by concepts outside of the Overton window?
If you diss the community in a pompous way while being part of it yourself, of course you're going to get downvoted. Rightly so.
Since your comment distorted the hard problem Facebook faces with uncharitable snark ("okay with"), there were other reasons to downvote as well, even if one disagrees with Facebook.
Since your comment distorted the hard problem Facebook faces with uncharitable snark ("okay with"), there were other reasons to downvote as well, even if one disagrees with Facebook.
From this aspect, this internal quiz question seems reasonable if its intent is to test the candidate's knowledge of the technical details (e.g. what a protected category is) in the face of a seemingly absurd situation (e.g. Why should white men be more protected than children of any color?). Similar tactics are used in HR training I've had to go through. I remember for a sexual discrimination training quiz, there was a question about a woman who used anti-gay-male slurs in the workplace who then herself alleged she was being harassed for being a female. The question was worded in a way to trap you if you thought women couldn't be the offenders. I regret to say I've forgotten the specifics but the question actually referred to a real-life case in which a court sided against the woman because of her documented use of anti-gay slurs.
Edit: as absurd as that FB training slide seems, I don't think people give enough credit to how nuanced FB has to be when trying to be both a reasonable censor while allowing important free speech -- think the Philando Castile shooting video -- in real-time and across international borders and moral codes. It's a tough balancing act to train people to judge this, and the training materials are unavoidably going to sound horrific. Imagine the wording of a question that tested a candidate's handling of a photo posted of a naked young girl running in pain from a napalm attack.
That said, the argument about how being the squeaky wheel, or a celebrity with a following, gets you better, faster treatment than the disenfranchised, is true. But that unfortunate situation has happened everywhere else in real life, including media. In journalism, one cynical aphorism is: "News is whatever happens to your editor"